TILL
Since Sherwin-White allegedly claimed unquestionable historical accuracy for
the book of Acts, what I said about Sir William Ramsay would apply to
Sherwin-White too. Perhaps Walid can tell us what kind of extrabiblical
evidence Sherwin-White found that confirms the various extraordinary claims
that Luke made in the book of Acts. Until Walid can do this, he is in
effect arguing that because a writer knew the geography of the region he
wrote about and the names of public officials and such like, we can
therefore know that Luke was also accurate in his reporting of the various
miracles claims found in the book of Acts.
I'll use just one example to show how fallacious this line of reasoning is.
In *The Twelve Caesars,* the Roman historian Suetonius recorded many events
and named many public officials that are widely considered to be
historically accurate. However, Suetonius also stated that when Roman
officials were arguing over where the body of Julius Caesar should be
cremated, two "divine forms" came down with torches in hand and set fire to
the funeral couch (Penguin Books, 19989, p. 52). Suetonius also stated that
a man who had just recently purchased the mansion that had been owned by the
grandfather of Caesar Augustus went to sleep in the room that had been the
nursery of Augustus, and in the night he was "hurled out of bed by a
supernatural agency and found lying half-dead against the door, bedclothes
and all" (p. 56). Suetonius further claimed that Emperor Vespasian healed a
blind man and a lame man by just touching them (p. 284).
What are we to conclude about these remarkable claims? Are we supposed to
assume that because Suetonius was historically accurate in so many of his
details about ordinary events and persons, he therefore had to be accurate
in his reporting of supernatural deeds like these? Walid should tell us if
he accepts the historical accuracy of Suetonius in the supernatural claims
that he wrote about? If not, why not? Then he should explain to us why
Luke's accuracy in commonplace, ordinary matters should give us reason to
assume Luke's accuracy in unconfirmed supernatural claims IF HE IS NOT GOING
TO ACCORD TO SUETONIUS THE SAME STANDARD OF CONSIDERATION.
As for Luke's historical accuracy in ordinary historical matters, I will
cite just one example that gives us reason to doubt this frequently made
claim. In Acts 5:35-37, Luke had Gamaliel, a Pharisee and "doctor if the
law," saying this to the Sanhedrin as they deliberated on what to do to the
apostles for continuing to preach the resurrection of Jesus: "You men of
Israel, take heed to yourselves as touching these men, what you are about to
do. For before these days rose up Theudas, giving himself out to be
somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves,
who was slain and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed and came to
nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the
enrollment, and drew away some of the people after him. He also perished,
and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad."
In this speech, Luke had Gamaliel putting the revolt of Theudas before the
one led by Judas of Galilee. Luke's Gamaliel dated Judas's uprising at the
time of the "enrollment," which is a probable reference to the enrollment
that Luke mention in his gospel (2:2). Luke alleged that this enrollment
occurred when Quirinius was govenor of Syria (2:2), and in *Antiquities of
the Jews,* Josephus referred to the "sons of Judas of Galilee," who had been
slain in a revolt when Cyrenius [Quirinius] came to take an account of the
estates of the Jews" (20:5.2). In 20.5.1, however, Josephus said that the
revolt of Theudas happened when Fadus was "procurator of Judea," and this
would have had to have been between A. D. 44-46, since that was when Fadus
was procurator of Judea. Quirinius was governor of Syria 40 years earlier,
so we have Luke disagreeing with Josephus as to the proper sequence of these
two revolts. Luke said that the revolt of Theudas happened before Judas of
Galilee's; Josephus said the opposite. In fact, if the revolt of Theudas
occurred during the administration of Fadus, then Luke has Gamaliel talking
about a revolt that hadn't even happened yet. (Gamaliel's speech was
allegedly made about 2 months after the alleged resurrection in about A. D.
29; Fadus was procurator of Judea in A. D. 44-45.)
To "resolve" this problem, biblical inerrantists have argued that the
Theudas that Josephus referred to was not the same Theudas that Luke's
Gamaliel referred to, and some have simply said that Luke was right and
Josephus wrong. At any rate, this one example is enough to cast doubt on
the frequently heard fundamentalist claim that Luke has been shown to be a
remarkably accurate historian.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net